Flogging…What is it? What purpose does it serve? For those of us who have never heard of flogging, flogging refers to “beating with a whip or strap or rope as a form of punishment” (“Flogging” 1). Throughout the 1600s, flogging was utilized by “Boston’s Puritan Forefathers” (Jacoby 1) as a method of corporal punishment for various crimes. Progressing forward, Jeff Jacoby, columnist for The Boston Globe, provides readers with his view of “Boston’s Forefathers’” system of punishment in his essay, “Bring Back Flogging.” Within the contents of his work, Jacoby describes how flogging was utilized as punishment in its day. One such example he utilizes involves a woman who pleaded guilty to committing adultery. He writes that her punishment was “fifteen stripes severally to be laid on upon her naked back at the Common Whipping post” (Jacoby 1). In his piece, Jacoby argues for the revival of flogging and Puritan style punishment in the United States. As well as this, the author illustrates how imprisonment has become society’s general form of punishment and has now become outdated. Jacoby proposes that in order to cut costs and prevent future crime within first time offenders the turn to flogging must be taken. Jacoby’s logic to his argument is that since crime rates are rising, keeping prisoners locked up is expensive, and “the penal system is choked to bursting” (Jacoby 1), prisons should be done away with and flogging should take the reins as the new form of corporal punishment. Bearing in mind the above, Jacoby’s argument on bringing back flogging is unconvincing for the reason that his assumptions are incoherent and flogging itself is inhumane and could prove to be ineffective.
To begin with, Jacoby’s assumptions can be seen as ill...
... middle of paper ...
...ffective at all. He does not take into account the fact that flogging could actually cause more crimes in present society. Crimes have evolved and punishment must evolve as well. Reverting back to flogging, a primitive form of punishment, would counterbalance the efficacy of crime prevention. Clearly, times are different. Both people and the crimes they commit have changed and flogging as the popular process of edification for convicted criminals is of the past and jail time is of the present. In actuality, people should be investigating ways to inhibit crimes from occurring rather than seeking out ways to punish people. All in all, criminals whether convicted for murder or tax evasion are still criminals and will serve imprisonment accordingly. To end with, as the 1970s TV series, Baretta, once stated, “Don’t do the crime if you can’t do the time” (“Baretta” 1).
In the article “Bring Back Flogging” Jeff Jacoby writes that prison inmates are given a disservice more than people who used to be flogged in the 1600s. Flogging was a punishment that used for a wide variety of crimes and was usually done publicly with the victim being whipped an appointed number of times. Jacoby writes that flogging is a more educational experience than going to jail because it is an experience that the criminal will never forget. He goes on to say that another reason why prisons are obsolete is because they are so expensive and often times the prisoners do not come out reformed. He claims that prisons are a place that criminals can sharpen their skills and learn from each other so that they can perform even more heinous acts. Not only are inmates becoming better criminals but they also see their crimes as “status symbols” (197) the more despicable the crime the more respect from other inmates. The author writes that if the punishment for even small crimes were as severe a flogging then the measure of status would, over time, disappear. The article “Bring Back Flogging” by Jeff Jacoby writes about an unpopular topic through rational
Every civilized society makes laws that protect its values, and the society expects every single citizen to obey these laws. Whenever a citizen of a certain society breaks one of these laws, the rulers of the society dish out punishments they dim fit for the kind of crime committed. With this kind of justice system in place, criminals are either locked up in prison cells, whipped, or exiled from the society. In the essay, “Bring Back Flogging”, columnist Jeff Jacoby argues that flogging is much more superior to imprisonment and should be brought back as a method of punishing crime offenders like the Puritans did in the past. He is convinced that the shame associated with flogging would prevent offenders from going into crime professionally. Jacoby believes that whipping criminals has more educational value compared to locking them up in cells and that it saves a lot of money. Throughout the essay Jacoby attempts to build ethos even though it fell apart due to misconceptions. He relied mostly on the use of pathos by appealing to his reader’s emotions and using this as a base ground for his logos.
In Jeff Jacoby’s essay Bring Flogging Back, he discusses whether flogging is the more humane punishment compared to prison. Jacoby uses clear and compelling evidence to describe why prisons are a terrible punishment, but he lacks detail and information on why flogging is better. In the essay he explains how crime has gotten out of hand over the past few decades, which has lead to the government building more prisons to lock up more criminals. His effort to prove that current criminal punishment is not perfect or even effective is nicely done, but he struggled with discussing ways that flogging could lower the crime rates and provide a safer environment for America.
When the our criminal justice system introduced punishments, sanctions for criminal behavior tended to be public events which were designed to shame the person and deter others. These punishments included ducking stool, the pillory, whipping, branding and the stocks. As years progressed, these punishments have slowly started disappear from our penology and capital punishment was introduced. According to Kronenwetter,
In “Bring Back Flogging”, Jeff Jacoby argues why the current criminal justice system in America is not effective or successful. As a solution, he suggests that America should bring back the old fashioned form of punishment once used by the puritans, flogging, as an alternative to imprisonment (198). This article originally appeared in the op-ed section of the Boston Globe newspaper. Therefore, the primary audience of this article is people who want to read arguments about controversial topics and have probably read some of his other articles. His argument that the current criminal justice system is not working is extremely convincing. He appeals to pathos and uses statistics to prove that thesis and to persuade the audience.
Jeff Jacobys’ essay, entitled “Bring Back Flogging” was, in my sincere opinion, poorly constructed. There are numerous instances where I felt that he had either not supported his premises with valid information or had negated his support in later sentences.
During seventeenth century flogging was a popular punishment for convicted people among Boston's Puritans. Fortunately, those times have passed and brutal and inhuman flogging was replaced by imprisonment. Columnist for the Boston Globe, Jeff Jacoby in his essay "Bring back flogging" asserts that flogging is superior to imprisonment and advocates flogging as an excellent means of punishment. He is convinced that flogging of offenders after their first conviction can prevent them from going into professional criminal career and has more educational value than imprisonment. He also argues that being imprisoned is more dangerous than being whipped, because the risk of being beaten, raped, or murdered in prison is terrifying high. Unfortunately, Jeff Jacoby made some faulty assumptions and his article "Bring back flogging" is filled with misconceptions.
Jacoby starts his essay by providing a background history on flogging by relating the punishment to crimes that would be insignificant in today’s society. He claims that imprisonment has become an “all purpose punishment” used for violent and nonviolent crimes alike (193). Citing a plethora of facts and research, Jacoby argues that the prison system is ineffective and too costly. To support his claim he advocates for a system of public humiliation and degradation to deter lower class criminals from becoming repeat offenders. Jacoby realizes that flogging’s “crimes of the day” are not our crimes, but maintains that flogging would be effective in current society and not any more brutal than being caged (194).
...l punishment as a just and morally sound method of justice. After all, "An eye for an eye" seemed to be a rationale that many embraced as fair. Now there is an era of closer examination of what is truly just and morally ethical, as well as economically sound. A consequence needs to be fair, humane, and effective. Does capital punishment meet these criteria? There are compelling reasons to change the system we have blindly acclaimed. Hopefully we are in the process of implementing a new way of dealing with an age-old dilemma.
In “Bring Back Flogging,” Jeff Jacoby, a journalist, argues why the current criminal justice system in America is not effective or successful. As a solution, he suggests that America should bring back the old fashioned form of punishment, flogging, once used by the Puritans as an alternative to imprisonment (198). This article originally appeared in the op-ed section of the Boston Globe. Therefore, the primary audience of this article is people who want to read arguments about controversial topics and have probably read some of Jacoby’s other articles. His argument that the current criminal justice system is not working is extremely convincing. He appeals to pathos and uses statistics to prove that thesis and to persuade the audience. However, he provides no reason why corporal punishment is the best alternative to imprisonment and never offers any other options. Additionally, he does not make an effort to explain why corporal punishment would be more effective or successful than imprisonment. Thus, in “Bring Back Flogging,” Jeff Jacoby successfully informs his audience of the dangers and problems with imprisonment by using verbal irony, appealing to the emotion of pity, incorporating logical
“The question of whether the death penalty is a more effective deterrent than long-term imprisonment has been debated for decades or longer by scholars, policy makers, and the general public” (Radelet & Lacock, 2009).
3) Though the claim that death penalty serves as a deterrent is valid, it is controversial in its soundness. It is sound that criminals fear the death penalty. Indeed, death penalty is fearful, as it is irrevocable and takes away the life and future of the criminal sentenced to it. However, the evidences supporting the second premise that is the core function of the claim for the deterrence argument is too excessive. In the letter, the author first presents his own experience to prove that the fear of death penalty deters offenders from carrying a gun. However, using an experience as a proof for deterrence for such a complex and serious punishment as the death penalty is extreme. While supporters of the author may respond with the author’s credibility as a police officer for thirty years, personal experience and insight can’t be extrapolated with possibilities of bias...
“I am convinced that imprisonment is a way of pretending to solve the problem of crime. It does nothing for the victims of crime, but perpetuates the idea of retribution, thus maintaining the endless cycle of violence in our culture. It is a cruel and useless substitute for the elimination of those conditions--poverty, unemployment, homelessness, desperation, racism, greed--which are at the root of most punished crime. The crimes of the rich and powerful go mostly unpunished.”
Punishing the unlawful, undesirable and deviant members of society is an aspect of criminal justice that has experienced a variety of transformations throughout history. Although the concept of retribution has remained a constant (the idea that the law breaker must somehow pay his/her debt to society), the methods used to enforce and achieve that retribution has changed a great deal. The growth and development of society along with an underlying, perpetual fear of crime are heavily linked to the use of vastly different forms of punishment that have ranged from public executions, forced labor, penal welfarism and popular punitivism over the course of only a few hundred years.
Punishment has been in existence since the early colonial period and has continued throughout history as a method used to deter criminals from committing criminal acts. Philosophers believe that punishment is a necessity in today’s modern society as it is a worldwide response to crime and violence. Friedrich Nietzche’s book “Punishment and Rehabilitation” reiterates that “punishment makes us into who we are; it creates in us a sense of responsibility and the ability to take and release our social obligations” (Blue, Naden, 2001). Immanuel Kant believes that if an individual commits a crime then punishment should be inflicted upon that individual for the crime committed. Cesare Beccaria, also believes that if there is a breach of the law by individuals then that individual should be punished accordingly.